The future of global catastrophic risk events from climate change Increasing risks posed by climate change are causing rare extreme events that can kill more than 10 million people or lead to damages of $10 trillion-plus, posing threats of total societal collapse, a U.N. report finds.
Four times since 1900, human civilization has suffered global catastrophes with extreme impacts: World War I (40 million killed), the 1918-19 influenza pandemic (40-50 million killed), World War II (40-50 million killed), and the COVID-19 pandemic (an economic impact in the trillions, and a 2020-21 death toll of 14.9 million, according to the World Health Organization).
These are the only events since the beginning of the 20th century that meet the United Nationsâs definition of global catastrophic risk (GCR): a catastrophe global in impact that kills over 10 million people or causes over $10 trillion (2022 USD) in damage. (...)
As the United States struggles to protect its citizens against the worsening effects of climate change, returning survivors to their homes after hurricanes, wildfires and other disasters has emerged as a particular failure. Money, it turns out, is not the problem. Instead, agencies are hamstrung by rules that often make little sense, even to the officials in charge.
The result is a growing class of displaced Americans, a version of domestic climate refugees, scattered across motel rooms and trailer parks, an expanding archipelago of loss.
Climate Deniers and the Language of Climate Obstruction From narratives about fossil fuels as a solution to climate advocates as out of touch with reality, hereâs how the fossil fuel industry and its allies are weaponizing words to delay climate action.
The lakeâs flies and brine shrimp would die off â scientists warn it could start as soon as this summer â threatening the 10 million migratory birds that stop at the lake annually to feed on the tiny creatures. Ski conditions at the resorts above Salt Lake City, a vital source of revenue, would deteriorate. The lucrative extraction of magnesium and other minerals from the lake could stop.
Most alarming, the air surrounding Salt Lake City would occasionally turn poisonous. The lake bed contains high levels of arsenic and as more of it becomes exposed, wind storms carry that arsenic into the lungs of nearby residents, who make up three-quarters of Utahâs population.
âWe have this potential environmental nuclear bomb thatâs going to go off if we donât take some pretty dramatic action,â said Joel Ferry, a Republican state lawmaker and rancher who lives on the north side of the lake.
As climate change continues to cause record-breaking drought, there are no easy solutions. Saving the Great Salt Lake would require letting more snowmelt from the mountains flow to the lake, which means less water for residents and farmers. That would threaten the regionâs breakneck population growth and high-value agriculture â something state leaders seem reluctant to do. (...)
So where is Mitt in all this? I guess he can afford his own Brine Shrimp and doesn't care.
The lakeâs flies and brine shrimp would die off â scientists warn it could start as soon as this summer â threatening the 10 million migratory birds that stop at the lake annually to feed on the tiny creatures. Ski conditions at the resorts above Salt Lake City, a vital source of revenue, would deteriorate. The lucrative extraction of magnesium and other minerals from the lake could stop.
Most alarming, the air surrounding Salt Lake City would occasionally turn poisonous. The lake bed contains high levels of arsenic and as more of it becomes exposed, wind storms carry that arsenic into the lungs of nearby residents, who make up three-quarters of Utahâs population.
âWe have this potential environmental nuclear bomb thatâs going to go off if we donât take some pretty dramatic action,â said Joel Ferry, a Republican state lawmaker and rancher who lives on the north side of the lake.
As climate change continues to cause record-breaking drought, there are no easy solutions. Saving the Great Salt Lake would require letting more snowmelt from the mountains flow to the lake, which means less water for residents and farmers. That would threaten the regionâs breakneck population growth and high-value agriculture â something state leaders seem reluctant to do. (...)
Agree with your comments...but here's the issue for coal... 2022 global employment stats by industry...
Global Consumer Electronics Manufacturing 17,430,9422.
Global Commercial Real Estate 17,164,7103.
Global Fast Food Restaurants 13,458,1464.
Global HR & Recruitment Services 11,988,3765.
Global Apparel Manufacturing 9,675,6726.
Global Hotels & Resorts 9,517,4627.
Global Coal Mining 8,918,4898.
Global Tourism 8,684,6449.
Global Commercial Banks 8,076,79610.
Global Auto Parts & Accessories Manufacturing 8,060,047
9M people and all of those who know/depend on them is a lot.
sure, but coal wouldn't be the first industry to become obsolete. And there are a lot of jobs going out there at the moment.
Pretty damning judgment on German policies, but he is certainly right on the geography matters point. I am kind of hoping that the widespread fear of nuclear in Germany diminishes this year as we come up against hard realities. Coal is literally the pits.
Agree with your comments...but here's the issue for coal... 2022 global employment stats by industry...
Global Consumer Electronics Manufacturing 17,430,9422.
Global Commercial Real Estate 17,164,7103.
Global Fast Food Restaurants 13,458,1464.
Global HR & Recruitment Services 11,988,3765.
Global Apparel Manufacturing 9,675,6726.
Global Hotels & Resorts 9,517,4627.
Global Coal Mining 8,918,4898.
Global Tourism 8,684,6449.
Global Commercial Banks 8,076,79610.
Global Auto Parts & Accessories Manufacturing 8,060,047
9M people and all of those who know/depend on them is a lot.
this could have worked in several forums/threads
this one was on the raft
Pretty damning judgment on German policies, but he is certainly right on the geography matters point. I am kind of hoping that the widespread fear of nuclear in Germany diminishes this year as we come up against hard realities. Coal is literally the pits.
There are a lot of local solutions and much better building technology (which he didn't touch on). A lot of new houses have a zero energy budget, yes, even here in Germany. Ours is new but not zero but we can live pretty comfortably on 10000 kWh p.a. (includes heating and powering all our appliances) which is in the ball park of a decent wind generator or two (helps that we live on the top of an exposed hill).
edit: btw we don't need AC here, even today (99°F outside) as our house has a green roof and 8" of insulation in the cladding.
Agreed. Those who have been fighting against any transition away from fossil fuels, or dragging their feet on it, have no credibility when talking about the proper speed of the transition. Those who are climate change deniers/skeptics would not see any urgency to making the transition â assuming they see any reason at all for doing so.
taking a local sample of neighbours, it looks like the war in Ukraine has given renewables a huge shot in the arm. Most of us are reliant on gas-fired heating and are hurriedly looking at what alternatives we have to have a modicum of warmth this coming winter in case the gas lines are shut down. Lots of solar/wind combinations getting installed around here. No one gives a shit anymore about whether the solution is economic. We just want a solution so we don't freeze.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 18, 2022 - 8:00pm
haresfur wrote:
So after over a decade of opposing doing anything at any pace to address climate change because of being a denier skeptic, now we can't do anything because it would be too fast. That type of thinking is responsible for the current situation. We could have managed the change before we were fucked.
Every country can figure out a way to say that they aren't the real problem. Australia claims correctly that our greenhouse gas emissions are minor compared to other countries. Never mind that our per capita emissions are about the highest in the world. No, one person turning down a thermostat won't get to the desired result sooner, but everyone doing a little bit will reduce the emissions so reduce the rate of increase until the world gets it shit together. And it isn't only about the actual production rate change - part of the inefficiency is having to size power plants for peak usage and cutting the peaks is important. Not being able to meet a target is no excuse for not reducing emissions.
It really pisses me off to see the moving narrative of people who want to push out dealing with the problem. The former Australian government pushed the time frame for meeting emission targets way out into the future. That sucked but then they didn't even start doing anything to meet that time frame. So the target was total bullshit designed to keep from having to do anything to transition away from fossil fuels.
Agreed. Those who have been fighting against any transition away from fossil fuels, or dragging their feet on it, have no credibility when talking about the proper speed of the transition. Those who are climate change deniers/skeptics would not see any urgency to making the transition â assuming they see any reason at all for doing so.
It doesn't matter if Climate Change is real or if it is a hoax. We can only get so far so fast, safely. This is the same kind of thinking that if I set the thermostat lower it will get to the desired less cooler temp sooner.
So after over a decade of opposing doing anything at any pace to address climate change because of being a denier skeptic, now we can't do anything because it would be too fast. That type of thinking is responsible for the current situation. We could have managed the change before we were fucked.
Every country can figure out a way to say that they aren't the real problem. Australia claims correctly that our greenhouse gas emissions are minor compared to other countries. Never mind that our per capita emissions are about the highest in the world. No, one person turning down a thermostat won't get to the desired result sooner, but everyone doing a little bit will reduce the emissions so reduce the rate of increase until the world gets it shit together. And it isn't only about the actual production rate change - part of the inefficiency is having to size power plants for peak usage and cutting the peaks is important. Not being able to meet a target is no excuse for not reducing emissions.
It really pisses me off to see the moving narrative of people who want to push out dealing with the problem. The former Australian government pushed the time frame for meeting emission targets way out into the future. That sucked but then they didn't even start doing anything to meet that time frame. So the target was total bullshit designed to keep from having to do anything to transition away from fossil fuels.
See, there's your problem. Most people don't really care about helping humanity. Can you show how it will help me personally? And really, just me, I don't want to be spending any resource helping those 'other' people. In fact, if you could show that it would hold them back a bit while letting me race ahead I would happily sign on to that program.
Sure, but maybe folks aren't all about nihilism?
But if they are...cheaper fuel bills, fewer health issues/cheaper health premiums, look out the window and no smog...
You are not arguing against my points, as much as the fringe left that wants to stop oil now.
So you appear argue, let's keep the status quo and ignore the problems it causes.
My argument is, lets develop a solid plan to transition to cheaper, clean, more efficient energy,
that will have less of an impact on the environment,
and perhaps more importantly help humanity (by reducing the health impacts and providing them with appropriate energy resources and boosting their quality of life).
See, there's your problem. Most people don't really care about helping humanity. Can you show how it will help me personally? And really, just me, I don't want to be spending any resource helping those 'other' people. In fact, if you could show that it would hold them back a bit while letting me race ahead I would happily sign on to that program.
You are not arguing against my points, as much as the fringe left that wants to stop oil now.
So you appear argue, let's keep the status quo and ignore the problems it causes.
My argument is, lets develop a solid plan to transition to cheaper, clean, more efficient energy,
that will have less of an impact on the environment,
and perhaps more importantly help humanity (by reducing the health impacts and providing them with appropriate energy resources and boosting their quality of life).
Seems to me that with the evenly divided Senate and Manchin being Manchin that any progress on this issue is if the Republican party stops treating this like a third rail. What it will take for that to happen is anyone's guess. But I'd drop some of my hard earned $ in the donation hat for an organization that is working to that end.
I just chuckled to myself thinking of someone donating bitcoin to an environmental cause, after having burned a city blockâs worth of electricity to mine a piece of a coin.
